Downtown Calgary stands flooded with rising waters from torrential rain and swollen rivers in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 21, 2013. Flooding forced the evacuation of some 100,000 people in the western city of Calgary and nearby towns in the heart of the Canadian oil patch. AFP PHOTO / DAVE BUSTONDAVE BUSTON/AFP/Getty Images
TOPSHOTS
DAVE BUSTON, AFP/Getty ImagesDAVE BUSTON / AFP/Getty Images

Driving east on the Trans-Canada Highway outside of Winnipeg it’s impossible not to catch sight of what is colloquially known as Duff’s Ditch.

Officially labelled the Red River Floodway, the 47-kilometre-long diversion was built between 1962 and 1968 under the watch of then Manitoba premier Duff Roblin to protect Winnipeg from being flooded by the Red River.

The project cost $62.7 million — a price tag that, while shared between the province and federal government, was not much less than Manitoba’s entire gross domestic product. Needless to say, there was much opposition to the project, which, by the time of the 2013 floods in Calgary, had saved Manitobans $32 billion in flood-related damages, according to government estimates.

Are there parallels to be drawn with Calgary, specifically the lack of progress in terms of progress on upstream flood mitigation? If anything, the terrible flooding in Houston is a tragic reminder of the potential consequences of inaction should we continue to stall on putting critical mitigation structures in place.

Downtown Houston is underwater and it will be years before it returns to pre-flood functionality. For the record, that city had a mitigation plan on the books after Hurricane Rita, which, for reasons of cost, was never carried out.

“We don’t want to be in that situation. We don’t want to be asking ourselves ‘why didn’t we get this done?’ ” says Calgary Economic Development chairman Steve Allan.

Downtown Calgary was inches away from the same fate as Houston in 2013. Yes, inches.

Enmax removed water from one of its substations, which, had it been flooded, would have caused months of disruptions downtown. Yet four years later, nothing in the way of upstream flood mitigation is underway, putting Calgary’s already fragile economy at risk.

“The conversation to this point seems to be focused on wealthy ranchers in Springbank versus wealthy residents of the river communities. But the real focus should be on our economy and on jobs,” said Allan. “If we had another event similar to 2013, we’d be toast.”

Calgarians are by now aware of the Springbank (SR1) and McLean Creek (MC1) proposals, the two options proposed for upstream mitigation. A third option recently put forward by the Tsuut’ina Nation, which would involve storing water on its lands, has not been studied much less publicly scrutinized.

The Springbank and McLean Creek proposals were studied by the previous and current provincial governments and vetted by outside consultants. After 13 studies, it was concluded the Springbank option made the most sense for a number of reasons, including costs, environmental impact and length of time to complete.

In concert with management of the Glenmore Reservoir, the Springbank dry dam would temporarily store water in the event of a flood. According to available data, water would occupy SR1 once every 20 years, or a total of eight times over the past 108 years.

A permanent diversion would have to be built, but it would not be as disruptive as building an in-stream dam, as the McLean Creek project proposes.

There are profound and permanent consequences to the surrounding environment any time a dam is built. Had it been selected to proceed, it’s a safe bet the McLean Creek project would trigger significantly more opposition from environmental groups and Indigenous communities.

The fact there hasn’t been strong environmental opposition to the Springbank project, with the exception of the Tsuut’ina Nation starting about a year ago, needs to be recognized.

“If we look at the data, there’s no question McLean Creek would cost more, has a greater environmental footprint and would take far longer to build. And most importantly, it wouldn’t protect downtown Calgary as well as Springbank because it’s further upstream,” said Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark, who represents the provincial riding of Calgary-Elbow, which includes a number of neighbourhoods that were flooded in 2013.

The cynic might say the McLean Creek option — which would impact the recreation area — has more appeal to the landowners opposed to the Springbank plan since it involves Crown land, meaning their own land positions aren’t compromised.

As to concerns from Springbank dam opponents regarding the potential impact on Camp Kiwanis, the analysis shows about 20 per cent of the area would be affected by the project. In fact, SR1 would better protect the camp, which has been flooded four times during the past 25 years.

If there was an issue with the camp continuing at its current site, it’s a safe bet Calgary’s community-minded nature, including that of its corporations, would step forward. While no one would want to see this happen, if it had to move, the camp would not disappear or cease to exist. To suggest only the camp’s current location is viable is simply unrealistic, if not somewhat disingenuous.

A downtown core that generates $120 billion in economic activity cannot be moved. A summer camp can be relocated.

Four thousand Calgary businesses and 26 neighbourhoods were impacted by the 2013 floods. About 75,000 people were put on evacuation notice. The well-being of 19 families living in Springbank cannot supersede that of a city, or the province. This is about the public good.

“Why is there even a question about how, or whether, we should protect the economic engine of Western Canada?” asks Clark.

No one wants to see land expropriated, but those affected will be compensated, which is a key reason the cost of the Springbank plan has increased. The province is going beyond what’s required under legislation by offering to buy up entire parcels of land — 2,750 hectares in total — rather than the 1,450 hectares required for the project.

As Calgary-Shaw MLA Graham Sucha recently stated in a letter to the Herald, the NDP government has taken this course of action at the request of the landowners and was presented “as an option, not a requirement.”

Sucha also pointed out that five residences, not 22 as some have claimed, are affected in the 1,450-hectare footprint.

Perhaps opponents of the Springbank project need reminding there were 17 families whose homes were flooded and bought out by the province. That doesn’t include those who couldn’t afford to rebuild their homes and were forced to live elsewhere.

As Mayor Naheed Nenshi often reminds Calgarians, this city sits on the confluence of the Bow and Elbow rivers. There will be another flood — it’s simply a question of when that happens.

“Every year there are thousands of us watching the snow pack, looking at the forecast for rain, how high the river level is and we white knuckle it from the end of May to the end of July, praying nothing will happen,” said CED chairman Allan.

Tony Morris is co-president of the Calgary River Communities Action Group, which began as a group of affected homeowners after the 2013 floods but has grown to become an advocacy group whose aim is to protect the city from the impact of another catastrophic flood. Morris has determined the Springbank option is best for Calgary.

“The big fear is that if SR1 goes away, (McLean Creek) won’t go ahead because of the level of opposition that is out there. (Springbank) is our best option to get something done on the Elbow River. The studies support it. Two governments have supported it. The City is supporting it. We support it as stakeholders … it makes the most sense,” he said.

All of those arguments — and the supporting studies — appear to have resonated with the federal government.

In a letter to Tsuut’ina Chief Lee Crowchild last month explaining the government’s decision to proceed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s review of the Springbank project — rather than commission a separate panel review — federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said she believed nation’s concerns could be addressed by joining a technical working group.

“I appreciate your concerns regarding the potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal and Treaty rights … and it is my view that your concerns about the project will be effectively addressed through an Agency-led assessment,” she wrote. “I understand that Tsuut’ina Nation has a number of specific issues that must be addressed in the environmental impact statement.”

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency review will avoid delays and dovetail with the provincial review being undertaken by the Natural Resources and Conservation Board. (It needs to be asked why it took the Tsuut’ina three years to voice opposition to the Springbank proposal.)

Much of the opposition mirrors tactics used by environmental groups opposed to pipeline and energy development, who somehow believe fossil fuels can be replaced without impact or cost.

The arguments against the Springbank project, like those opposed to pipeline construction, aren’t based on all of the facts. If that were the case, the critics would recognize the ratio of the cost of SR1 calculated on a net present value basis compared with the benefit in terms of the damages avoided is higher than for McLean Creek.

Instead, it’s about a small group of individuals with means, determined to assert their interests are more important than those of a much larger population.

History has proven Duff Roblin right, to the tune of billions of dollars. The same story needs to be written for Calgary — and Alberta — now, not tomorrow.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Market to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.